Why the obsession with everybody having correct/accurate cognitions?

[bhsmte]

I have not seen one response to the question of why people are obsessed with everybody having only pure, correct/accurate cognitions at all times.

My observation is that if Person A at X point in time has the belief that the Earth's moon is made of marshmallow cream the attitude and response of almost everybody is that Person A is somehow flawed and that he/she must be corrected by somebody who knows that the Earth's moon is not made of marshmallow cream.

At any given time probably everybody has incorrect cognitions. For various reasons--such as nobody being conscious of or aware of the incorrect cognitions, the person being in isolation, etc.--no correcting is done. Yet, neither life, society, civilization or the world comes to an end. I would even say that life, society, civilization and the world do not miss a beat.

Also, it seems that we assume that if a person has an incorrect/inaccurate cognition that he/she is being deceived (by him/herself or others) or has been misinformed. Hence, we proceed to correct things with different information. The fact that we do not really know why the person has that cognition--it could be due to countless other things such as the structure of his/her brain--does not ever seem to be taken into account. Apparently the business of correcting everybody who has an incorrect/inaccurate cognition absolutely must be done and there is no room for investigating the source of the problem.

Several responses in this thread have been people asserting that they have a better grasp of the realities of reality. Well, they do not seem to be acquainted with the reality that having incorrect/inaccurate cognitions is part of being human (see the third paragraph above). If having incorrect/inaccurate cognitions is harmful then being human is harmful.

Marshmallow cream sounds tastier than rocks anyway, so I would not be in any hurry to correct anybody.

You are really delving into individual psychology and that is a very complex issue, because that varies like a finger print and is very deep.

IMO, we are all hardwired to lean either towards; analytical thinking or intuitive thinking. No one is 100% analytical or intuitive, but there is a dominant player in all of us. Analytical thinkers typically crave finding the truth and also have a desire to verify that truth. Intuitive thinkers are typically satisfied with a lessor degree of objective investigation of the truth and for that reason, are much more likely to believe in things that can not be proven.

There are normative ranges in psychology. We all tend to utilize denial as a defense mechanism to a certain degree, but it leaves the normative range, when someone refuses to accept objective evidence and continues to believe in something that is not only highly unlikely, but near impossible. People who do this, have a psychological need they are trying to fulfill, that is not considered a healthy one.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

You are correct that it is normal to have inaccurate cognitions/perceptions or whatever you want to call it.

Here is where the difference comes in between a psychologically healthy person and one that is not:

The healthy person will recognize (eventually) and accept that the cognition/perception was wrong - usually when additional experiences have been attained and or evidence is present that is clear.

The unhealthy person, will not only accept these cognitions to be absolutely correct (even when evidence and common sense would prove otherwise) and hold on to them for dear life. Also these folks may manufacture false cognitions/perceptions based on a faulty basis of reality around them in their brain and the process keeps magnifying out of control.

Fortunately, most people have the ability to recognize when they are perceiving the world around them in a false manner. But, when you come up on someone who does not have this ability - look out below when it comes to dealing with that person and they are more common than most think.

That would lead me to conclude that people have an irrational mistrust of humans and therefore are obsessed with correcting everybody.

My inclination is to let people go through the normal process of discovering reality on their own. They will have a better appreciation of reality if they discover it rather than being "corrected" by people.

 

[Cocoafrost]

Possibly because humans are egocentric by nature. Fear of cognition arrives from being insecure that others know more than we do, or that there's something we may not know that stands to make what we presently think we do a mistake.
Know it all,tends to be the pinnacle for our ego's. Just look at institutionalized religion. Of all things that exist people believe they are the sole occupier of God's attentions. And all that we do is scrutinized unto infinitesimal detail through a voyeuristic perspective from the vaults of Heaven.

"Is it a sin? Does God care if I touch?"

If he does he needs a better hobby. If you believe he does, you wouldn't care to ask.

Humans!
We are why we need saving.

 

[quatona]

I do not see the term "objectively true" as being an oxymoron. "Subjectively true" perhaps, but if anything the term "objectively true" is somewhat redundant.

Well, I mentioned that only as a side-note, and not to derail the thread.

Does what we decide to value either more or less actually coincide with the actual value of that which we have taken the decision to value.

I´m sorry, I don´t understand this question. Would you be so kind to reword it for me?

Is it not possibly the case that things have value outside of our opinion of them?

No, I don´t think so. I have no idea what "value" might mean without the qualifier to whom something has value.
Maybe you can give me an example for something having value despite nobody ascribing value to it? I can´t seem to wrap my mind around this concept.

My personal position is: I don´t/wouldn´t value anything that I don´t value. An abstract "objective" value (even if you could explain to me what that´s supposed to be) would be of no significance to me.

Why do you propose that the opinion, of a person or group of people, about the value of a thing is of greater importance than the intrinsic value of that thing apart from its utility to a certain class of living beings?

Actually, I don´t think that I proposed that. I was explaining why people may not value (even though they may ascribe intrinsic value to it) something to the same degree as the next person.
IOW, I proposed that those who value something higher than something else do so because it´s of greater importance to them. I didn´t propose that their opinion was of great(er) importance to someone else.

 

[bhsmte]

That would lead me to conclude that people have an irrational mistrust of humans and therefore are obsessed with correcting everybody.

My inclination is to let people go through the normal process of discovering reality on their own. They will have a better appreciation of reality if they discover it rather than being "corrected" by people.

I don't know if I would call it a mistrust of humans, but I would agree that some people are very uncomfortable, if they feel something is "wrong" and they want to correct it. These would be the dominant analytical thinkers, that are driven by things making sense and they are filling a psychological need by correcting that person.

On the other hand, you have folks who deny evidence because it goes against a core belief they may hold and they put their fingers in their ears and manufacture all kinds of irrational reasons to ignore the evidence.

I do agree, that people change or adjust their beliefs, when it is their idea, especially folks who are holding onto a belief that can not be verified. A healthy mind will protect the belief to a degree, but then accept reality for what it is. The unhealthy mind, will hold onto to it come hell or high water.

Both sides can be overbearing, but thats what makes the world go around.

 

[quatona]

I have not seen one response to the question of why people are obsessed with everybody having only pure, correct/accurate cognitions at all times.

Maybe that is because your question is - in its hyperbole - borderline strawmannish?

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Maybe it is all rooted in the insistence that everybody has to make a choice between alternative absolutes.

 

[quatona]

Well, find yourself someone who is obsessed with truth in the way you describe it, and ask him/her your question.
In the meantime, you may or may not want to discuss the positions people here actually hold.

As far as I am concerned, your personal beliefs - as inaccurate as they may be - are no skin of my nose. I might just call them "inaccurate" when they are demonstrably inaccurate...just as I find it a great service when a person explains to me when my opinion is demonstrably false.

 

[grasping the after wind]

It may have value for someone, just not for you.

Or it may have value for some thing other than a human agency as well.

But if you are suggesting that something can have value apart from its relation to any living being, I'd wonder just what you mean by "value". It doesn't make any sense to me to view value as something that exists "in and of itself". If something is a value, it is always a value for someone and for some purpose.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Though I was thinking more along the lines of value in relationship to any number of beings or even things like an ecosystem for instance, you have made me, by your post, consider the matter in another way. Are you saying that you have no intrinsic value but only have worth as it relates to your utility to someone for some purpose? Now, This next actually flies in the face of my own religion but I am suggesting it anyway for discussion. I am suggesting that existence has value apart from purpose or utility or relationship to another thing. How do you go about showing me that my suggestion is not within the realm of possibilities?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Well, I mentioned that only as a side-note, and not to derail the thread.

Fair enough.

I´m sorry, I don´t understand this question. Would you be so kind to reword it for me?

Very well, let's try it this way
Are we accurate in assessing the value of thing? Can we be mistaken in our evaluation?

No, I don´t think so. I have no idea what "value" might mean without the qualifier to whom something has value.
Maybe you can give me an example for something having value despite nobody ascribing value to it? I can´t seem to wrap my mind around this concept.

My personal position is: I don´t/wouldn´t value anything that I don´t value. An abstract "objective" value (even if you could explain to me what that´s supposed to be) would be of no significance to me.

An example would be bread mold. Until the invention of penicillin no one ascribed any value to it yet it always had the potential. Because You or I may not realize what value something has does not change the fact that there is value there. My question here was about our opinion of value not about whether something has objective value.

Actually, I don´t think that I proposed that. I was explaining why people may not value (even though they may ascribe intrinsic value to it) something to the same degree as the next person.
IOW, I proposed that those who value something higher than something else do so because it´s of greater importance to them. I didn´t propose that their opinion was of great(er) importance to someone else.

Sorry that I misunderstood you.
Is it not possible that people may not value something that is of great importance to them simply because they take that thing for granted?This is what I am trying to get at, Since we are not omniscent or infallible, how can we be confident that our own opinion of what is of value to us, has any relationship to the actual value a thing has for us? No question of an objective value only a question of whether our own subjective opinion of a things utility and value to us being correct. If I were to say air has no value to me because I have never experienced a lack of it would I not be mistaken?

 

[Davian]

I have not seen one response to the question of why people are obsessed with everybody having only pure, correct/accurate cognitions at all times.

I don't think it has to be at all times. However, when it comes to things such as voting, or educating our children, the I would consider the veracity of our cognitions to be important.

My observation is that if Person A at X point in time has the belief that the Earth's moon is made of marshmallow cream the attitude and response of almost everybody is that Person A is somehow flawed and that he/she must be corrected by somebody who knows that the Earth's moon is not made of marshmallow cream.

Sure, but that is not representative of the type of beliefs that have been the centre of controversy in politics and education.

At any given time probably everybody has incorrect cognitions. For various reasons--such as nobody being conscious of or aware of the incorrect cognitions, the person being in isolation, etc.--no correcting is done. Yet, neither life, society, civilization or the world comes to an end. I would even say that life, society, civilization and the world do not miss a beat.

I disagree. I think that, in some of the major disease outbreaks in the past, we might not have lost up to a third of the worlds population had we correctly identified the mechanism of transmission at the time.

And going back to the subject of voting, a Heinlein quote comes to mind:

"The America of my time line is a laboratory example of what can happen to democracies, what has eventually happened to all perfect democracies throughout all histories. A perfect democracy, a ‘warm body’ democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens… which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it… which for the majority translates as ‘Bread and Circuses.’

‘Bread and Circuses’ is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader—the barbarians enter Rome." - Robert A. Heinlein

Also, it seems that we assume that if a person has an incorrect/inaccurate cognition that he/she is being deceived (by him/herself or others) or has been misinformed. Hence, we proceed to correct things with different information. The fact that we do not really know why the person has that cognition--it could be due to countless other things such as the structure of his/her brain--does not ever seem to be taken into account. Apparently the business of correcting everybody who has an incorrect/inaccurate cognition absolutely must be done and there is no room for investigating the source of the issue.

Of couse there is room for investigation. It may simply be the result of indoctrination, or the need to better understand how the brain works.

Billions of dollars are beng spent.

The $1.3B Quest to Build a Supercomputer Replica of a Human Brain | Wired Science | Wired.com

Several responses in this thread have been people asserting that they have the best grasp of the realities of reality. Well, they do not seem to be acquainted with the reality that having incorrect/inaccurate cognitions is part of being human (see the third paragraph above). If having incorrect/inaccurate cognitions is harmful then being human is harmful.

I guess it would depend on what your expectations are for humans. For myself and my family, I would like to live with as few as possible incorrect beliefs, and as many as possible correct.

Marshmallow cream sounds tastier than rocks anyway, so I would not be in any hurry to correct everybody.

I don't think that marshmallow cream would have supported the lunar landers quite as well.

 

[quatona]

Very well, let's try it this way
Are we accurate in assessing the value of thing? Can we be mistaken in our evaluation?

Sure, e.g. more than once I have missed a couple of aspects when I made value judgements and acted upon them - aspects that, had I seen them, would have led to another evaluation and decision.
However, this still is a statement from within my priorities of values, my value system.

An example would be bread mold. Until the invention of penicillin no one ascribed any value to it yet it always had the potential. Because You or I may not realize what value something has does not change the fact that there is value there. My question here was about our opinion of value not about whether something has objective value.

Of course, a person to whom health is a great value will appreciate bread mold more than she used to after knowing that penicillin can be made of it.

Sorry that I misunderstood you.
Is it not possible that people may not value something that is of great importance to them simply because they take that thing for granted?

Sure. It´s possible for other reasons, as well.

This is what I am trying to get at, Since we are not omniscent or infallible, how can we be confident that our own opinion of what is of value to us, has any relationship to the actual value a thing has for us?

Well, we have to work from the information available, haven´t we.
I am, however, not sure I understand what all this has to do with my initial statement from which this discussion started.
As far as I remember I didn´t say anything to the effect that we can´t be mistaken in our judgements as to whether a certain thing is positive or negative by standards of our value system. I was talking about our value systems in general.

No question of an objective value only a question of whether our own subjective opinion of a things utility and value to us being correct.

Yes, we can be very mistaken there (i.e. when it comes to telling the value of a particular "thing" according to our value system). However, being mistaken about the accuracy of a statement or missing some of the beauty a certain thing has, is irrelevant for the fact that I value beauty over truth (or vice versa). Which has been the subject of my initial statement.
I hope this helps clarifying our misunderstandings.

If I were to say air has no value to me because I have never experienced a lack of it would I not be mistaken?

Yes, depending on your value systems, you might be mistaken.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Are you saying that you have no intrinsic value but only have worth as it relates to your utility to someone for some purpose?

That depends. Just what do you mean by the term "intrinsic value"? I don't believe in values that don't relate to someone for whom it is a value, so I certainly reject that notion of intrinsic value. So, my life is of value to me, but not because I have some mysterious "intrinsic value", but because it is my life.

However, I'm not suggesting what you probably think I am suggesting. I'm not saying that it is ethically permissible to use other people as if they were mere tools. I'm not a moral subjectivist who thinks that "anything goes" as far as one's choice of values.

We, as human beings, flourish when we live with and among other human beings who we respect as having lives of their own to lead. With a handful of those others, we will develop friendship and loving relationships. We have a natural interest in cultivating such a life, and such a society would be very valuable to us.

In cultivating love for others, we make their lives a part of our own. Their values may become our values. We want other people to fare well in life because we feel a deep emotional bond to them, and we see the appropriateness of their own pursuit of what is of value for them.

However, this doesn't mean we see some "intrinsic value" in them. Rather, we see that they have lives of their own in which they value (hopefully) what is beneficial for them. We have a sense of what is beneficial ourselves, and in putting ourselves in their shoes, we feel the appropriateness of their pursuits. In valuing those others in this way, we come to value them as complete persons, as we should. They become important to us for the purpose of flourishing in this life.

I am suggesting that existence has value apart from purpose or utility or relationship to another thing. How do you go about showing me that my suggestion is not within the realm of possibilities?

I still have no idea just what you mean by "value". We'll need to start with that. The reason that your suggestion is not (in my view) within the realm of possibilities is definitional.

To me, a value suggests a goal to be attained or maintained, where failing to act means that one will not achieve that desired state of affairs. It isn't a mere feeling, although the pursuit of a value typically involves some sort of felt motivations (such as love). As such, a value always has a subject to whom the value makes a difference.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[grasping the after wind]

Sure, e.g. more than once I have missed a couple of aspects when I made value judgements and acted upon them - aspects that, had I seen them, would have led to another evaluation and decision.
However, this still is a statement from within my priorities of values, my value system.





Of course, a person to whom health is a great value will appreciate bread mold more than she used to after knowing that penicillin can be made of it.



Sure. It´s possible for other reasons, as well.
Well, we have to work from the information available, haven´t we.
I am, however, not sure I understand what all this has to do with my initial statement from which this discussion started.
As far as I remember I didn´t say anything to the effect that we can´t be mistaken in our judgements as to whether a certain thing is positive or negative by standards of our value system. I was talking about our value systems in general.
Yes, we can be very mistaken there (i.e. when it comes to telling the value of a particular "thing" according to our value system). However, being mistaken about the accuracy of a statement or missing some of the beauty a certain thing has, is irrelevant for the fact that I value beauty over truth (or vice versa). Which has been the subject of my initial statement.
I hope this helps clarifying our misunderstandings.
Yes, depending on your value systems, you might be mistaken.

Only depending on my value system? There is no way that my value system may be mistaken as well?

 

[Upisoft]

If someone believes that 4 + 4 = 10 then we do not want him being an engineer.

4 + 4 = 10 is true. Sometimes we lack information, and conclude that something is wrong, because we base our judgement on wrong assumptions.

 

[grasping the after wind]

That depends. Just what do you mean by the term "intrinsic value"? I don't believe in values that don't relate to someone for whom it is a value, so I certainly reject that notion of intrinsic value. So, my life is of value to me, but not because I have some mysterious "intrinsic value", but because it is my life.

I would say that I can see the posssiblity that there is value in all things without relating them and apart from human experience. You seem to discount completely the idea that value can be attributed to anything unless it is in someway related to a human being. The universe has no value unless people decide they value it? I can see the possibility that the very state of being imbues value to that which exists. It has worth because it is. If we see value in this case as not a function of utility but more in the terms by which value is placed upon certain elements by humans like gold for instance. The human valuation of precious metals is a function of their scarcity as well as the desire of humans to possess them. If we decide that human interaction can be removed from the equation( and there is nothing to stop us deciding this but our own prejudices in favor of our own species) it then becomes simply a matter of scarcity. I would then argue that that which exists in a particular time and place is scarse and has worth because of it.

However, I'm not suggesting what you probably think I am suggesting. I'm not saying that it is ethically permissible to use other people as if they were mere tools. I'm not a moral subjectivist who thinks that "anything goes" as far as one's choice of values.

No I do not think you are talking about values. I know your postings well enough to know you would not confuse the word value (worth) with value (moral).

We, as human beings, flourish when we live with and among other human beings who we respect as having lives of their own to lead. With a handful of those others, we will develop friendship and loving relationships. We have a natural interest in cultivating such a life, and such a society would be very valuable to us.

In cultivating love for others, we make their lives a part of our own. Their values may become our values. We want other people to fare well in life because we feel a deep emotional bond to them, and we see the appropriateness of their own pursuit of what is of value for them.

Again you need not pursue this line as I am not confusing the two concepts either.

However, this doesn't mean we see some "intrinsic value" in them. Rather, we see that they have lives of their own in which they value (hopefully) what is beneficial for them. We have a sense of what is beneficial ourselves, and in putting ourselves in their shoes, we feel the appropriateness of their pursuits. In valuing those others in this way, we come to value them as complete persons, as we should. They become important to us for the purpose of flourishing in this life.

I find anthropocentrism to be too confining. If I am restricted from viewing worth to the opinions of human agents there are so many avenues of inquiry that are closed to me.

I still have no idea just what you mean by "value". We'll need to start with that. The reason that your suggestion is not (in my view) within the realm of possibilities is definitional.

Let me define my idea of value by cherry picking the below from sources I like.

The importance or preciousness of something.The level at which someone or something deserves to be valued.

Not as defined below though he certainly has a point about economic value.

"The value of a thing in any given time and place", according to Henry George, "is the largest amount of exertion that anyone will render in exchange for it. But as men always seek to gratify their desires with the least exertion this is the lowest amount for which a similar thing can otherwise be obtained." [2]

To me, a value suggests a goal to be attained or maintained, where failing to act means that one will not achieve that desired state of affairs. It isn't a mere feeling, although the pursuit of a value typically involves some sort of felt motivations (such as love). As such, a value always has a subject to whom the value makes a difference.

My own thoughts about value or worth have nothing to do with goals or achievement or love . Though value may well have a subject to whom the value makes a difference I do not see the necessity of the subject being either human or singular or being the source of that value. What causes us to place a value upon a thing or person? Is it an arbitrary desire of ours to put things into categories or do we recognize a quality that already exists and would exist without our recognition?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I don't think it has to be at all times. However, when it comes to things such as voting, or educating our children, the I would consider the veracity of our cognitions to be important...

Voting, educating, etc. are making and acting on decisions.

Making and acting on decisions is not the same thing as having a cognition. One's cognitions play a role in making and acting on a decision, but merely having a cognition is not doing those things.

When it is time to make a decision a responsible person will make sure as much as possible that he/she is working with correct/accurate information. However, none of this proves that there is any harm in allowing a person to have an incorrect/inaccurate cognition.

I disagree. I think that, in some of the major disease outbreaks in the past, we might not have lost up to a third of the worlds population had we correctly identified the mechanism of transmission at the time...

I would argue that sociological things like communications technology, social structure, etc. are the key variables in such situations, not the psychology of individuals marginally having incorrect/inaccurate cognitions.

I don't think that marshmallow cream would have supported the lunar landers quite as well.

It probably would have made a better meal than what the astronauts had to eat.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

This is from Power, Responsibility and Freedom, by David Smail:


"Global society constitutes a system of inexpressible complexity. It is like a huge central nervous system in which ‘social neurons’ (i.e. people) interact with each other via an infinity of interconnecting and overlapping subsystems. The fundamental dynamic of the system is power, that is the ability of a social group or individual to influence others in accordance with its/his/her interests. Interest is thus the principal, and most effective, means through which power is transmitted.

Here, already, is the starkest possible contrast with our conventional psychology: what animates us is not rational appraisal and considered choice of action, but the push and pull of social power as it manipulates our interest. It is not argument and demonstration of truth which move us to action but the impress of influences of which we may be entirely unaware.

Reason, then, is a tool of power, not a power in itself. Just like moral right, rational right is not of itself compelling and, when it is in nobody's interest to regard it, will be disregarded. Those who - like Thomas Paine for example - seem successful advocates of Reason in its purest form, may fail even themselves to see that it is in fact not reason alone that makes their words persuasive, but the causes (interests) to which reason becomes attached. No doubt Mein Kampf was as persuasive to those already sold on its premises as The Rights of Man was to 18th century revolutionaries in America and France. This does not mean, to those who value reason, that Paine's writing is not worth infinitely more than Hitler's; it means simply, and sadly, that Reason alone is impotent. What really matters is power itself.

In her mordantly compelling Lugano Report2, Susan George vividly draws attention to the inadequacy of rational argument as a means of influencing people. In starting to consider alternatives to the potentially disastrous practices of global capitalism, she writes:-
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]"This section has to start on a personal note because frankly, power relations being what they are, I feel at once moralistic and silly proposing alternatives. More times than I care to count I have attended events ending with a rousing declaration about what ‘should’ or ‘must’ occur. So many well-meaning efforts so totally neglect the crucial dimension of power that I try to avoid them now unless I think I can introduce an element of realism that might otherwise be absent.

…because I am constantly being asked ‘what to do’, I begin with some negative suggestions. The first is not to be trapped by the ‘should’, the ‘must’ and the ‘forehead-slapping school’. Assuming that any change, because it would contribute to justice, equity and peace, need only to be explained to be adopted is the saddest and most irritating kind of naivety. Many good, otherwise intelligent people seem to believe that once powerful individuals and institutions have actually understood the gravity of the crisis (any crisis) and the urgent need for its remedy, they will smack their brows, admit they have been wrong all along and, in a flash of revelation, instantly redirect their behaviour by 180 degrees.

While ignorance and stupidity must be given their due, most things come out the way they do because the powerful want them to come out that way.[/SIZE].." "


Similarly, I would argue that non-reason alone is impotent. In other words, it is the misuse of power, not a person's misuse of a marginal cognition about the Earth's moon being made of marshmallow cream, that threatens us.

 

[Dave Ellis]

4 + 4 = 10 is true. Sometimes we lack information, and conclude that something is wrong, because we base our judgement on wrong assumptions.

I hope you're not an engineer....

 

[Ripheus27]

Does any of this (the sentiment of the OP's author) have to do with the level of hostility shown on the Internet towards people who have make spleling/garmmatiacl msitakes?